Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: Net Neutrality and The Propaganda To Kill It

  1. #1
    Mako

    Default Net Neutrality and The Propaganda To Kill It

    I'm not one to usually create topics, but this just got to me.

    I was watching Fox News in my weird sadist way, and low and behold they've launched a new campaign to fight against Net Neutrality while pretending to argue for it.
    Now for those of you who are unaware of Net Neutrality, the concept is that no company can regulate the content on the Internet, can not favour traffic to some sites over others, and can not interfere with traffic (as Comcast did to BitTorrent users).
    There was a recent court decision that decided the FCC could not force Net Neutrality under the current rules, and that Comcast is authorized to interfere with traffic as they please. The FCC in attempts to ensure that the Internet stays the way it is now (sans Comcasts packet interference) they're reclassifying the Interner to fall under the rules of telephone service.


    Watch what Fox News does. As the video notes this isn't the editorial side. This is the news side and it's a prime example of their flagrant bias and propaganda tactics.


    Much of the problems are noted in the description, but it's pretty obvious. The anchor is not only using favourable worlds, and a repeating mantra of "Obama is taking over the internet","Government take over", "Big Government" etc. She gives considerably more time to Jim Harper who is lying about what the situation is, and interrupts Josh Silver each time in attempts to misdirect the opinion back in Jim's favour. They completely turn the issue into opposite land where they're claiming it's the FCC trying to censor content on the Internet where the reality is they're doing the complete opposite and prevent content control and manipulation.
    Want to know the icing on the cake? Jim Harper works for the CATO institute. Want to take a wild guess which ISP donates to this think tank?

    The Internet "sky is falling" has been yelled many times, but if we don't keep vigilant we may lose the Internet as we know it.

    I'm particularly interested to hear conservatives on the issue of Net Neutrality, and how Fox News is handling it.

  2. #2

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Mako View Post
    I'm particularly interested to hear conservatives on the issue of Net Neutrality, and how Fox News is handling it.
    I'm only interested in a conservative/"libertarian" view if they can demonstrate that they actually understand what net neutrality *is*. The ones I've seen on Fark, Digg and Slashdot are almost universally so misinformed on the subject that they're unable to present a coherent argument that would apply to reality. Hell, the ones on Fark don't even talk about net neutrality lately - in the thread about this specific video, they just ranted about the political ideology of one of the groups that in favor of the proposed legality changes.

    Of course, Fox News isn't exactly helping to explain the issue to their viewers, so... yeah, it's a bit of a problem.

  3. #3

    Default

    The expressions on Josh Silver's face over the course of the discussion in that video are perfect. You can smell the disgust with the direction of the conversation.

    The video was bad, but I think Mako actually overstates the case against it; the two sides had roughly equal time and I had the impression that the host was simply being woefully ignorant with a generally right-wing bias rather than being intentionally misleading.

    This is why I avoid Fox News's news side - they consistently play this sleight of hand game where the headlines and hosts report facts but with a biased mischaracterization. It isn't like their opinion shows where the anchors intentionally push positions, but rather they just hire a bunch of anchors who are right-wing ideologues who react to the news and moderate discussion in ways that bear out their biases.

    There are really two distinct ways to push propaganda. There's the type that outright lies or makes clearly fallacious "logical arguments" and the type that presents facts while employing sleight of hand. Since propaganda is only effective if believable, most propaganda takes the latter form. Fox opinion shows are the mostly the former and Fox news shows are mostly the latter.

  4. #4
    Mako

    Default

    Watch closer. I don't think I overstated at all. Megyn Kelly opens with the set-up of government take-over, starts and ends with Jim Harper without interrupting him once but interrupts Josh Silver both times he speaks. During the last transition over to Josh Harper she directly states "everything I've read on this is a push by the Obama administration to control the internet to some extent". She is deliberately tilting the information in his favour in how it's being provided. If she were being an unbiased moderator she wouldn't be employing these tactics.

    But the also have the sleight of hand tactics with the header of of "Battle over stricter federal regulation of the internet" which is not what the FCC is fighting for. It's about regulating ISPs to prevent regulation over the internet. Also there is specific tone changes in Megyn's when speaking, where Jim is introduced as an opposer of regulation in a serious professional tone, Josh is introduced as a proponent of regulation in a very rushed manner. Her specific choices in wording all emphasize control, government, fear, regulation, Obama.

    Again, I also highly question their guest selection here of Jim Harper considering his think tank has Comcast as a corporate contributor who is at the centre of this debate at the moment.

    It's not as flamboyant as Hannity, or Beck but the bias is glaringly obvious in this case.

  5. #5

    Default

    why not let the free market decide which direction it goes, historically this is the best way to find equilibrium, it may take awhile but it gets there. the government that governs the least governs the best

  6. #6
    Mako

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by dyepurr View Post
    why not let the free market decide which direction it goes, historically this is the best way to find equilibrium, it may take awhile but it gets there. the government that governs the least governs the best
    Okay BGI3 you were right.

    Please first demonstrate you actually understand the issues that are going on before rambling off campaign slogans.

    <edit> Also dyepurr, if you don't understand why I'm being dismissive here that's the problem. Proposing "free market" shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Internet works, what net neutrality entails, the goals of the ISPs and why filtering traffic is universally beneficial to them but negatively affects us as users as it will drastically change the internet as you see it today. The goal of net neutrality is to preserve the neutrality of network traffic upon the internet like it is. Please first do some research into the topic.

    Side note, and I really want to stress I don't mean this as a personal attack. But it's hard to take you seriously at all with that name. I know it's hard to think of a nickname but I would advise strongly on changing it to something a bit more tasteful then dyepurr(diaper). There's an area at the bottom of your user control panel where you can request a name change.
    Here's the article from our wiki on choosing a name.

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by dyepurr View Post
    why not let the free market decide which direction it goes, historically this is the best way to find equilibrium, it may take awhile but it gets there. the government that governs the least governs the best
    Here's a hint: how many internet providers does the average American have to choose from?

    Another hint: let's say you wanted to compete with Comcast - how would you go about doing that?



    Quote Originally Posted by Mako View Post
    Okay BGI3 you were right.
    One of those times I wish I wasn't.

  8. #8

    Default

    From what I understand from the start. Net neutrality biggest focus has been to prevent people like google shelling out big bucks to your ISP so it run faster than yahoo. An it would work for any site in this manner. The ISP want more money, that's all they ever want.

    Do you know how slow the avg. internet speed is for america, it embarrassing we might as well have dail-up. An for how much we spend, we can 2x as much in other country's.

  9. #9

    Smile



    Quote Originally Posted by dyepurr View Post
    why not let the free market decide which direction it goes, historically this is the best way to find equilibrium, it may take awhile but it gets there. the government that governs the least governs the best
    The "free market" approach is the *worst* way to resolve a situation when:

    a) decisions are made by a small group of people (ISPs)
    b) the decisions affect a much larger group of people (everyone), and
    c) the decision-makers have a significant bias/incentive/motive to make decisions to the detriment of the majority.

    Imagine if national defence was left to the free market. Would anyone voluntarily put their hand in their pocket and make a donation to the army or would they leave it to someone else to sort out? Regulation is sometimes required to keep things fair.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by tiny View Post
    The "free market" approach is the *worst* way to resolve a situation
    I agree with everything you say, I'd just like to add one thing:

    d) when the companies in question exercise a de facto monopoly on service.

    One could make the argument that since Verizon et al (the phone companies) and Comcast et al (the cable companies) are separate entities, they are competing. This is a false argument, as Verizon activly working with Comcast to be able to filter traffic.

    Why Comcast should be classed as a phone company, rather than an "information service":
    Verizon is a regulated as public utilities, and classed as "common carriers" which means they must carry all traffic. Essentially this means that net neutrality already exists for the phone companies. Since Comcast now offers phone and internet service, rather than just television programming, you are essentially getting the same service from either company. So, it only makes sense to declare Comcast a common carrier with all the regulations that go with it. Because if they don't what's to stop Comcast from blocking phone calls to Verizon customers?

Similar Threads

  1. Net Neutrality
    By Maxx in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 23-Oct-2009, 16:12
  2. Kill The MALES!!!
    By diapeybabybrian in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 15-Jul-2008, 00:53

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.